National Republican., 1887-01-27
Robhinp tho Indiana.

paper OF this morning communication from
Brother Painter, of the Indian Rights Assocla-
tion, upon thevery briefreport of my remarks at
the annual meeting Of the National Indian De-
fense Association a few evenings ago. Win
you grant me space to say few things in reply,
not exbsustively, since we design to discuss
more thoroughly this whole question through
the columns of the Council Erc, a paper chiefly
devoted TO the Indian problem:
l. Brother Painter refers TO my nouitia,e on
the Indian question, which frankly own. In
fact am not yet beyond my A. B, G In this
matter. The higher aud more abstruse reason.
ings of Brother Painter and his associates by
which they propose on the ground Of Christian
morality, philanthropy. aud civilization, to
violate the solemn pledges of the nation, and
force upon the indians their Christian policy
through forms of law, confess are at present
faculties.
2. lie says the principle of the bill is "indi-
vidual title to laud, and the protection of law"
wrong2 j know not what form or shape OF
the bill heshas in mind. because understand
that the bill as 1t passed the House the first
and have not seen 1t. But the bill on which
my comments were made was the bill as it
passed the House the first time this session.
has sSa ~ mis-
stated the vital point in the body of the bill.
He says 'the first section Of the bill provides
20 S6t tSs to % sSs ndsn
and force of the section OF all. 1t provides
that the Secretary OF the interior. in his own
discretion may go upon any Indian reserva-
tion, survey and allot the lands. and by sec.
2, after five years Of notice, If any Indian de-
clines to apply for his land u will be forced
upon him by some agent OF the government.
This would be in my Judgment coercion, usur-
patton. simply the right Of the strongest, and /
feel in my soul 1t is utterly abominabe. Sup
pose the same method should be attempted with
the lands Of charter companies, what an up
roar there would be
Yes, Ihold that the principle of this bill is
not question OF individual title to land and
form of using the power Of this great govern
ment TO violate its pledges, to destroy the reser
yation system, and to deprive the Indians of
has been been so often and SO solemnly guaranteed
to them. This is the principle Of the bill The
proposed advantage TO the Indians Is simply
the ninlbns Of glory In which to float the bill.
1t is the protection which the yulture gives the
dove
Q. Brother Painter takes me to task for not
that The tribes sScePeS BY the bill
ofa fact so plain and so long before the coun.
try would be, perhaps inexcusable even in
novice" and Just here lies the trick Of the
mentioned in the Indian territory, all of which
IS held by the same patent, proceeds to make
fish of one and fowl of the other, and since
novice, will he please to tell me why the bill
| applies to the Indians occupying the western
half Of that territory and not to those occupy
| tory Is held by patent Aha Brother Painter,
before the advancing tide Of Of this glorious
one formidable element Of which is
oppression, perfdy, whisky, landgrabbing,
and all manner In & Of chieanery and
does not know that, Notwithstanding their
| patent, delegations from the Indian territory
are Obliged to be here at every session Of Con.
their, robbery, absorption, or extinction, CON-
| stantly urged In the Interest of the whites and
| to the detriment of the Indians. Let this bill
become s,' law, and 60 into general execution
| that hold patents and tribes who do not-all
| will be swept away. The courts have decided
over and over again that occupancy and use.
| especially with government sanction, give
| title to the land SO occupied, and the right of
tribal internal self-goyernment A patent does
not create the title. It is simply the record
| of the exception in this bill on account of
| patent. On the contrary, this very exception
proves the inconsistency and hypocrisy OF the
| method here contemplated.
| 4. In reference omy statement that we know
| Of no Indian tribes or bands who have applied
| to Congress for a law Of this kind, Brother
OF individual Indians who desire their lands
in severalty, but he produces no single in
stance of an Indian tribe who in their tribal
capacity have formally petitioned Congress
I
He speaks of $50 absent shawnees. whose pc
| tition he has Just laid before the honorable
| commissioner of Indian affairs. Very likely
these absentees would like @ slice of land
| somewhere, and why can't the government
give them a slice from some part of the
| public domain not In reservation without in.
terfering with the other tribes, who have
made no such request? The government, 1t
seems, has land enough to patent millions Of
acres to useless foreigners, syndicates, aud
charter. companies, and II its heart Is SC
touched by the piteous complaint Of 35C
absentee Shawnees, who may and probably
have been grievously wronged heretofore, why
| not set apart for them new reservation? Oh
| no, Brother Painter, the pretext Is too thin.
Legislation for 100000 Indians on the petition
of $50 absentee Shawnees looks to me like trying
| 10 build a pyramid with the apex at the bot
| tom.
5. Brother Painters idea that our National
Indian Defense Association seems to be more
| anxious ito defend the Indians right to be an
| Indian" than to favor measures for his eleva-
| tion, &C., is rather a bright one. There are a
| good many white men with whom confess ]
should be panied to see an Indian changing
| place or character.
However, enough for the present. This letter
Of Brother Painter will keep for further COM
ment In the columns of the CouncA Fire Very
respectfully. B. SUNDERLAND.